[bluecalm]

---

Ignore details on bidding, opponents don't have exact agreements.\
First lead: A♣

What cards do you play here playing udca ?

In general, which card do you play from xxxx when partner leads the ace and the smallest one might be ambigious (difficult for partner to decide if we have xx or xxxx).

I play udca all my life but nobody ever gave good argument to convince me which is the proper card and it seems people prefer various ways (smallest, 2nd, 3rd).

[mikeh]

As far as I know, no-one has invented a legal method of telling partner whether you have xx or xxxx, regardless of signalling agreements.

In real life, some players will inadvertently or deliberately 'help' partner by hestitating with 4 and playing quickly with 2.

My advice...play your lowest in tempo. On any given hand, partner may be unable to read the card, but on many hands he can inferentially count declarer's probable holding to within one length card. Thus, on this hand, if partner has AKx, he will infer that the weak two bidder is more likely to hold xx than xxxx should you show count. If he holds AKxx, then he really does have a guess, and he'll make his switch/no switch decision based on his red suit holdings.

[rogerclee]

I play high from 3+ cards usually.

[bluecalm]

Quote

As far as I know, no-one has invented a legal method of telling partner whether you have xx or xxxx, regardless of signalling agreements.

Yeah, but some agreements might be better than others. My question is what is the best not taking account ethic considerations. Once we make an agreement that won't matter anyway.

Quote

I play high from 3+ cards usually.

I usually play 2nd from 4 (unless it's completely clear partner won't confuse xx with xxxx) and highest from 3 but I have my doubts about this.

[Phil]

Obvious Shift considerations aside (which few play, and even fewer understand)...

With the Queen in dummy, attitude is irrelevant. With 3 or four small, I play high to say - I am not ruffing the 3rd round.

If I were certain, partner could work out xx from xxxx, I'd play low.

Whatever you do, don't play a middle spot, which totally muddies things for your partner.

[Trick13]

I would expect partner to lead A for attitude with AKx and K for count with AKxx, so when partner leads the A and sees the Q on table, he knows my attitude so I signal suit preference.

But this doesn't answer the question. With ♣7632 I might prefer the 6 because it is less ambiguous. With ♣10632 I would risk the 3 if I might later want to signal for a higher suit with the 6 (assuming I think partner can read the distribution).

In practice these subtleties go unrewarded and may confuse partner.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I would expect partner to lead A for attitude with AKx and K for count with AKxx, so when partner leads the A and sees the Q on table, he knows my attitude so I signal suit preference.

We don't play that. Anyway the problem is only about how to signal count from xxxx.

Quote

But this doesn't answer the question. With ♣7632 I might prefer the 6 because it is less ambiguous. With ♣10632 I would risk the 3

It sounds very bad to me, partner after seeing the spot will enumerate all possible holding I might have and to do that he needs to know which exact spot I play from various things.

Quote

In practice these subtleties go unrewarded and may confuse partner.

I will clarify my question. It's not about "what do you play in pick up partnership having agreed UDCA" it's: "what is the best agreement with partner who notice all spots and enumerates all possible holdings in his head before making a decision".

For example if partner has AKJ9 he is missing: T7632. Assuming T drops from declarer to first trick then:

a)if we always play the highest spot from 4, he knows we have:
7632 or 763 or 762 or 732

b)if we always play 2nd spot from 4 then we could have:
632, 7632, 76

c)if we always play 3rd from xxxx then the cases are:
63, 73

d)if we always play the lowest spot then:
7632, 72, 62, 32

Notice that in this case c) is the most readable agreement. It might not alwys be the case depending on what spots declarer has and which he hides.
I am wondering if someone here did some thinking/analysis of those situations to come up with the best agreement.

Ethics, confused partner, lazy partner etc. doesn't matter for this problem.

One more example:
Now let's imagine declarer has T32 and we have 76, as before the ten drops and our cases are:
a)highest from xxxx; cases:
632, 76
b)2nd, cases:
7632, 76, 632
c)3rd, cases:
76, 632
d)lowest:
76, 632

In this case only b) causes ambiguity.

If declarer played 3 from his T32 then:
a)highest from xxxx:
76 exactly
b)2nd:
76 exactly
c)3rd:
76 or T762
d)lowest:
76 exactly

In this case only c) causes ambiguity.

[mike777]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-18, 15:22, said:

---

Ignore details on bidding, opponents don't have exact agreements.\
First lead: A♣

What cards do you play here playing udca ?

In general, which card do you play from xxxx when partner leads the ace and the smallest one might be ambigious (difficult for partner to decide if we have xx or xxxx).

I play udca all my life but nobody ever gave good argument to convince me which is the proper card and it seems people prefer various ways (smallest, 2nd, 3rd).

I would first think what is your priority here, giving count or attitude or even suit preference?

I would think it is good to have some exact agreements on what you show here at trick one and why.

As Phil mentioned there is a book out there called "A Switch in Time"


http://bridgewithdan...viousShift.html

[JLOGIC]

I do not like clubs so I discourage. When I discourage I play the highest spot I can afford so that it is clear to partner. If I play for instance the 6, partner might think I could have 76 doubleton. If I had a doubleton club I would encourage clubs with my lowest spot.

[wank]

my pet hate is partners telling me they gave count because their 'attitude was obvious'. it's not obvious to me you don't have a doubleton is it?

in this case i don't like clubs so i discourage. not hard is it?

[dake50]

Are we two decades into UDCA and these questions
are not answered? I've heard UDCA is best but, as
here, without justification. I hope your post
generates the "why it's best?"
Another case is UDCA vs. unblocking problems that
were easy when Std signals were used - high signaled
attitude while unblocking.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I do not like clubs so I discourage. When I discourage I play the highest spot I can afford so that it is clear to partner. If I play for instance the 6, partner might think I could have 76 doubleton. If I had a doubleton club I would encourage clubs with my lowest spot.

Quote

my pet hate is partners telling me they gave count because their 'attitude was obvious'. it's not obvious to me you don't have a doubleton is it?

in this case i don't like clubs so i discourage. not hard is it?

Well, we really want partner to play another high club if declarer isn't ruffing because he will discard a club on a heart we can ruff but this is at the cost of our natural trump trick.
So partner really needs to read club count here. I think situations like that are frequent. I also prefer to play "just attitude, low = play two more rounds o clubs, high = don't do it" but here it should clear that cashing a club is vital play if declarer has more than one.

In real hand I had 4-3-3-654 and I played the six. Declarer had 92 and partner AKJT.
Declarer played a 2♣ to this trick so partner knew I either have 654 o 96. He found the fine play of K♣ which was the only card to defeat the contract. Had declarer played a nine it would be crucial information for partner if I started with 4 or 3 of them as cashing K♣ opposite 3 is the play but cashing it opposite 4 is likely to cost the contract.
Let's see, how would various agreements fare if declarer played the 9 to the first trick, the club suit around the table was:

partner: AKJT dummy: Q875 me: 6543 decl: 92
Partner doesn't see 6432 so:

a)I play highest from 4, possible are:
6432, 643, 642, 632

b)I play 2nd from 4:
432, 6432, 64

c)I play 3rd from 4:
6432, 63, 43

d)I play the lowest from 4:
6432, 62, 42, 32

In case a) partner could deduce the winning play with 75% certainity, it's 66% for b) 66% for c) and 75% for d)

As you can see, along with my previous example it all depends on the spots declarer hides.
The question is what is the best agreement to maximize information.

C'mon guys, it's not simple question and you are treating this problem like it was someone who just learnt bridge asking about what low card mean: "read a book", "signal in tempo", "don't confuse partner", "I don't like clubs so I play high" etc. I mean it is difficult question about best agreements and not what to do in practice playing in pickup partnership.

[akhare]

We play OS with the explicit agreement that third hand gives count the lead of A (implying K).

Of course, in this case pard can't tell whether the 2♣ is from 2, 4, (or a unlikely singleton), but it should be fairly easy to figure it out..

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-January-18, 16:05, said:

As far as I know, no-one has invented a legal method of telling partner whether you have xx or xxxx, regardless of signalling agreements.

Signalling attitude is perfectly legal: small with a doubleton, high with 4.

I prefer this over count in this situation, of course it can matter whether we have 3 small or 4 small but whether we have a doubleton or not seems more important.

[Trinidad]

I will discourage with the highest I can afford: ♣7.

The rule is that we play attitude on partner's lead in trick 1. There are exceptions to this rule. The rule that governs the exceptions is that we only make an exception if the use of the rule cannot be useful.

In this case signalling attitude can be very useful since it allows us to show whether we can ruff the third club. It is true that showing count could also be useful since it tells opening leader whether the king will cash. It may even be more useful than showing attitude. But "may even be more useful" is not the criterion for exceptions.

In the lead from an AK combination I would be very hesitant to deviate from partnership rules. After all, the opening leader has already told you that he wanted attitude, otherwise he would have started with the king.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

This seems simply to come down to a matter of whether our card is attitude or count. When your partner leads an ace do they always have the king? If so then it seems count is probably best - play the lowest and hope partner can distinguish between xxxx and xx. If not then attitude seems clear - play the highest and hope partner is not on a guess for cashing out. I would expect most players to play the 7 and think this is best.

Clearly if we were playing Ace attitude, King count (or the reverse) then the signal to give is obvious (note: it is not sp!). I assume if that were the case then OP would have said so.

[rhm]

It all depends on your agreements and nothing works 100% of the time.
I prefer clear and simple signalling agreements, not subject to judgment and corresponding confusion what applies in a given situation.

For suit contracts I like to play the following:

1) If dummy has a singleton or void in the suit led: Suit preference
The same applies if dummy has a doubleton and it is obvious to both sides that dummy is going to win the second trick in the suit led.
For example partner leads the ace and dummy comes down with Kx: play suit preference signal.

2) Otherwise if dummy comes down with a doubleton: Give attitude

3) If dummy comes down with 3 or more cards in the suit: Give count, but give that as clearly as possible

Since dummy has 4 cards in clubs I signal with my lowest club that I hold an even number.

These rules are very simple, not subject to confusion, and work well in most situations for me.

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

Yes, A from AK and that's it. We generally give attitude but in situations where count is clearly (!) useful we give count.
Here I am not sure even with attitude, we see that partner needs to cash K♣ as we don't stop hearts but we don't know if declarer is ruffing club or not.
I would have doubts which card to play playing attitude. I recognized it as count situation though but still the problem remains which card is the best to play from xxxx while giving count. I think players who use std signals use 2nd spot there ? Maybe in UDCA also one could use other spot than the lowest from xxxx.

[rhm]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-19, 07:38, said:

... We generally give attitude but in situations where count is clearly (!) useful we give count.
Here I am not sure even with attitude, we see that partner needs to cash K♣ as we don't stop hearts but we don't know if declarer is ruffing club or not.
I would have doubts which card to play playing attitude. I recognized it as count situation though....

This is the type of agreements I like to avoid. There are just too many ways you can look at a problem in defense
Nothing is worse than one giving count and the other interprets it as attitude and vice versa.
It only leads to endless confusion and heated postmortem discussions.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2012-January-19, 07:52, said:

This is the type of agreements I like to avoid. There are just too many ways you can look at a problem in defense
Nothing is worse than one giving count and the other interprets it as attitude and vice versa.
It only leads to endless confusion and heated postmortem discussions.

I agree with this 100%. It is fine for experts to have agreements to give the signal partner wants to see but for B/I/As it is just not reliable enough that you are both going to know what the right signal is. You can get a long way with a simple att->ct->sp in our suits and ct->sp in declarer's suits, only skipping when it is 100% clear that this signal is unnecessary.

With standard count you play a high card for an even number and a low card for an odd number. In upside-down count this is reversed - the clue is in the name. Therefore if this is a count situation for you then the lowest card is correct. Partner is assumed to be able to work out the difference between xxxx and xx. Always give signals as clearly as you can without throwing away a useful card.